Imagine a society in which children are going to bed hungry, in which an increasing number of children are facing mental health challenges, and in which millions of children are unable to achieve their full potential. This is the lived reality for millions of children across the UK. 

In 2023, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) estimated that 4.2 million children were living in poverty in the UK. This is an 800,000 increase since the Conservatives took power in 2010. CPAG research has shown that childhood poverty often acts as a barrier to academic success, reduces future job opportunities, and damages physical and mental well-being, 

At some point this year the public will take to the polls. The Conservatives will likely do all they can to distract people from their abysmal record. However, voters must not forget the reality of the last 14 years. In particular, people must not forget about rising levels of child poverty.

Child poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and there is no single solution to it. However, specific policy measures can tackle the issue. All it takes is the political will to adopt bold policies. Although the last Labour governments had flaws, one of the most successful parts of its platform was its focus on tackling child poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, between 1997 and 2010, child poverty reduced significantly. This is in stark contrast to 14 years of Conservative government.

In 2010 Gordon Brown’s government introduced the Child Poverty Act which aimed to eradicate child poverty by 2020. However, this act was ditched by the Conservative government in 2016. From 2010 onwards, with the help of Liberal Democrats for five years, the Conservatives introduced stringent public sector cuts and welfare reforms. Together, this has deepened child poverty.

Labour has the potential to win this year’s election. If the party wants to reverse 14 years of failed policies and lift children out of poverty it must choose to be bold. 

Labour has wrongly reversed its decision to end the two-child welfare cap. It is estimated that 1 in 4 children in the poorest constituencies of England and Wales are in families that have lost over £3,000 a year from the policy, which has led to criticisms from organisations such as the TUC and CPAG. Lifting the cap would cost around £1 billion a year and according to research by CPAG, it would lift an estimated 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 out of deep poverty.

For context, the Conservatives have already spent nearly £300 million on the immoral Rwanda scheme, and during the pandemic spent £630 million on fraudulent PPE contracts. This shows that the issue is not whether there is money available to tackle child poverty – it is whether or not our political leaders have the courage to reform the economic system to benefit the vast majority of the public.

Another way to tackle child poverty is to extend free school meals to all children. This is already in place Wales and London (under Labour leadership), and is in place in a more limited form in Scotland (under SNP leadership). The national Labour Party is committed to free breakfasts for all schoolchildren. This is commendable, and will certainly tackle poverty by reducing pressure on household budgets while promoting the mental and physical well-being of schoolchildren. However, the party must go further and push for universal free school meals.

An estimated 900,000 children living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals.

Implementing universal free school meals would cost between £1.8 to £2.5 billion a year. Although this may seem like a significant price tag, the Impact on Urban Health Group estimates that the policy could generate up to £25.2 billion in benefits in the long term (such as by increasing school savings, family savings, and NHS savings).

Those who disagree with assisting those in poverty often argue that it is not economically feasible to do so. However, as demonstrated above, although initial costs may be high for specific policies, there are significant economic benefits that will result from these policies. Therefore, it is not only morally right to help those in need, but in the long term, it is also economically sensible.

As we head into the next election we should remember those 4.2 million children living in poverty. They are not merely a statistic. Every one of them is a child who deserves to grow up in a country that believes in their future. These are children that have been failed for the past 14 years. A change of government is certainly necessary, but we must also continue to place pressure on the next government so that tackling child poverty remains high on the political agenda.

A wave of debate and speculation has dominated our newsfeeds following a recent
statement made by General Sanders, a top British army chief, regarding the need to place
the United Kingdom on a “war footing” in the context of mounting tensions with Russia over
the conflict in Ukraine.

Despite government officials reassuring the British public that this is not a precursor to the
implementation of conscription law, the speculation surrounding the statement has revealed
an interesting insight into the attitudes of British citizens to the idea of state-mandated
enlistment in the event of war. Conscription, despite appearing to some as a relic of our
parents and grandparents war-time generations, still exists in many countries around the
world where the threat of invasion or large-scale conflict remains an omnipresent reality of
life. Conscription in the UK was abolished in 1963 and since, the United Kingdom has relied
on a well-trained, volunteer army. As we move from a period of relative global stability to one
of relative turbulence, commentators, politicians and military leaders have begun to pose the
question: “are we ready for what is to come?” Whilst conscription may or may not be the
answer to this, it is something that is beginning to re-enter public discourse.

A survey carried out to reveal the attitudes, both of British citizens and Leeds students,
towards the possibility of conscription revealed a clear objection to the idea, even in the case
of war with Russia, with just 24.3% of respondents claiming that they would be inclined to
fight for the United Kingdom. That figure was even lower amongst Leeds University students
at just 21.1% overall. 

When confronted with the hypothetical scenario of an imminent invasion of the British Isles
by a foreign military force, British citizens, it seems, would feel slightly more inclined to take
up arms, with 32.4% of respondents answering “yes”. The prospect of invasion seemed to
leave the rugged students of Leeds slightly more unphased with just 21.1% of respondents
saying they would volunteer to join the armed forces. Indeed, with Hyde Park as our refuge
and our fortress, it may well be business as usual for us in Leeds in any case. 

In the event of article 5 of NATO’s collective defence treaty being triggered (I.e. an eastern
European country is invaded by Russia) and the constituent states of NATO are required to
act in defence of the country being attacked, it appears there would be even less enthusiasm
to volunteer from students and the wider population alike. Just 10% of respondents across
both demographics answered yes to this question. Undoubtedly, it remains to be seen
whether conscription would be enacted in this event but with the British regular army’s total
troop numbers dwindling at around 75,000 men, an expeditionary force sent to eastern
Europe may struggle, critics have argued, to achieve its operational requirements,
particularly over an extended conflict. 

Respondents were then faced with a difficult final question. The survey asked; ‘if a law was
passed requiring all military aged citizens to be conscripted to the military or face criminal
conviction, what would you do?’ The prospect of facing your own country’s judiciary or facing
an enemy’s weaponry appears to leave British people slightly more divided, with 42.9%
agreeing to conscription and 57.1% agreeing to face criminal conviction. The UK
government may need to address Britain’s, already overpopulated, prison system before
enacting any conscription law, it appears. 

The survey’s results reveal two things about Leeds students and the wider British population;
the first is that conscription, if enforced, will be met with widespread rejection and protest by
the British public, particularly by the younger generation, and the second is that in the event of article 5 being triggered, General Sanders would have to rely on what he’s got to achieve
his military objectives.

It’s that time of the year again. The Oscars is approaching – the prestigious awards ceremony where
the film industry celebrate their finest work of the past year. And so, as usual, the nominations for
each category have now been released to the public so we can all formulate our opinions. While
plenty of actors, actresses, directors, and films have been recognised for their outstanding
achievements, there has been plenty of unrest surrounding the “Barbie snub.”
Barbie was definitely a highlight for the film industry in 2023 – releasing on the same day as
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer as the phenomenon “Barbenheimer”, Barbie generated $1.4
billion at the worldwide box office and received critical acclaim, with a current 88% on Rotten
Tomatoes. The acting, directing, and overall message of problems within our society were all crafted
beautifully by director Greta Gerwig. Despite this, while the film was nominated for eight categories,
Barbie did not receive any nominations for Best Actress and Best Director, causing a controversy that
has caught many an eye.
It’s not only the fact that Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, who played the titular Barbie, did not get
ample recognition from the Academy. In Barbie itself, Gerwig shows us the flaws of society (with a
hot-pink coat of paint), helping audiences realise that the villain of the film wasn’t Will Ferrell’s CEO
of Mattel, or Ryan Gosling’s emotionally conflicted Ken, but the inequity of genders in society itself.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Academy has proved Gerwig’s message right. Gosling, who played
Ken, was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and yet, in his own words, “There’s no Ken without
Barbie, and there is no Barbie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie.” Robbie also came out to
say that “I think Greta should be nominated as a director because what she did is a once-in-a-career,
once-in-a-lifetime thing.” The fact of the matter is that Gerwig and Robbie, the driving forces behind
the true meaning and success of the blockbuster, are being hugely underappreciated with not being
recognised for their deserved categories.
It isn’t all black clouds and sad faces for Barbie fans, however. America Ferrera, who played Gloria, a
Mattel employee who helps Barbie in the real world, was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.
Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas were nominated for Best Original Song for “What Was I Made
For?” And of course, Barbie has been nominated for the top award of Best Picture, being a huge
contender for taking the main prize.
But how does a film get nominated for Best Picture but not have its director and leading actress
recognised? Only if we look into the problems of our society and the industry, just as Barbie tells us
to do, will we begin to figure this out. Until then, we all know in our hearts that even if they weren’t
nominated for their respective categories, Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig will always be ‘Kenough’
for us.

Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer last week announced a significant U-turn to Labour’s environmental policy, cutting planned investments in green industry from £28 billion a year to just £4.7 billion, should the party win the next general election. It is just one of many recent policy reversals from Starmer in recent months, who is widely seen as moving Labour closer to the political centre, in a very obvious departure from his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, it’s even a departure from the earlier rhetoric of Starmer himself. In his leadership campaign in 2020, he ran on a largely idealistic platform, self-describing himself as a socialist and pledging to nationalise key industries like energy and mail.

Since then, policies under the Starmer Labour Party have changed drastically. In July 2022, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the party had scrapped the nationalisation of any public services. During the public sector strikes last summer, Starmer instructed his shadow cabinet not to protest on picket lines, and even sacked leftist MP Sam Tarry for disobeying this order. Perhaps most depressingly, Starmer even dropped his pledge to abolish tuition fees last May, framing the damage the ruling Conservatives have done to the economy as a scapegoat.

Clearly, as Starmer flirts with the prospect of power, he is simultaneously cosying himself up to the corporate class. Once the party of the working class, most Labour policies in 2024 are largely interchangeable with those from the Conservatives.

From the perspective of a student, the selection of insipid policies offered by Starmer inspires little confidence. Throughout my time at university, I always justified the expense of ludicrous tuition fees with the comfortingly naive thought that someday in the future, the Tories will be voted out of Downing Street, and a progressive and innovative government would sweep to power and cancel student loan payments to everyone’s relief. But as I enter further into my 20s, the idealism of youth is gradually swallowed by the disquieting realism of adult life. It is increasingly apparent that there is no prospect of a white knight to make living any easier, and the government that replaces our current one will be fundamentally similar and corporate in most tangible respects. And so will the next one after that, ad infinitum.

Somewhat wistfully, the optimistic campaigns of both Corbyn and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. are being left further and further behind, associated in my mind with the idyllic and carefree days of pre-drinks in student halls or my sixth-form holiday. Fast forward a few years, I am now facing the end of my university career in an economic climate which has rendered my humanities degree comically unemployable. And so grows the nascent dread— very soon, I am leaving the comforting security of student life and entering into an increasingly bleak job market, with the certainty of being burdened with an onslaught of bills for decades with which previous generations have not been encumbered.

From an older viewpoint, my dread probably reads as entitled whinging. There is nothing more unbearably student than denouncing ‘the illusion of choice under capitalism’. Moreover, to those with established careers and settled lives in their 30s and 40s, the concept of post-graduate anxiety is not a new one— in a way it’s comforting to know that my current apprehensions are universal and transient. But this does not make our qualms any less valid, particularly as the realisation sets in that under the inspiring Starmer, things are unlikely to change any time soon.

Given the abysmal current polling of the Conservatives, compounded with two heavy by-election defeats this month, Labour’s victory in the next election is all but assured. Starmer has effectively been handed a blank cheque to govern with whichever exciting and outlandish ideas one could conceive of. As the state of the country deteriorates, is it too much to ask for something a little different?

Over the last fourteen years, the UK has undeniably been devastated by fourteen years of successive
Tory prime ministers. The country is now in crisis with crumbling public services, our welfare state
having been dismantled and with people all across the country facing an unprecedented squeeze in
living standards, all while the UK has become the most unequal country in Europe. The sad reality is
that while the Tories have overseen an unprecedented rise in child poverty and an explosion in food
bank use, the superrich in this country have never had it better. The wealth of billionaires in this
country has increased by £438 Billion over the last decade while ordinary people have never had it
so bad as real wages remain below the level they were at the time of the 2008 Financial Crisis in real
terms. The people of Britain are calling out for a transformative government that will deliver real
change and deal with the unprecedented economic, social and of course environmental crisis that
the country faces today, sadly the current Labour leadership offers the country nothing but
continued Tory decline.

To understand the extent to which our country has fallen apart over the last fourteen years, you
have to look no further than the study from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
which found that in the eight years prior to the coronavirus pandemic there were 330,000 excess
deaths as a result of Tory Governments . Now in the face of this devastation you would expect the
Labour Party to be opposing the current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s plans for a second-round pf
devastating cuts but Labour has made it clear that it will not deliver the investment that our public
services need. Of course Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves will use the excuses about
‘tough choices’, claiming that they can’t afford the change the country needs but is this really true?
The University of Greenwich found that a 1% wealth tax on the richest 1% would raise between
£70bn and £130bn per year, money which could go towards our NHS, our schools and towards
ambitious policies like abolishing tuition fees, free school meals and radical anti-poverty measures to
deal with the frankly appalling levels of destitution that we shamefully face as the sixth richest
country on Earth. A wealth tax would only be the tip of the ice berg when it comes to money that
can be raised for cost of living support and our public services, similarly raising capital gains in line
with income tax rates would raise £15 billion per year and this is before we come to the money that
could be raised from increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners or raising taxes on big business.
Yet Labour refuses to back policies like free school meals and refuses to reverse the shameful two
child cap on benefits implemented by the Tories, the two policies combined would cost £3bn a year,
a fraction of the sums that could be raised from a rebalancing of our tax system to deal with the
country’s inequality crisis. It’s clear that the tinkering around the edges of a broken system as Labour
currently proposes to do will not help alleviate the £500bn of lost spending as a result of Tory and
Lib Dem austerity.

It is important that we also deal with Labour’s recent abandonment of its £28 billion per year climate
investment pledge, cutting its policy to an abysmal extra £4.7 billion a year above Tory plans. In
abandoning what had been the party’s flagship policy, Labour couldn’t have given a clearer
statement that it does not care about our future. Environmental scientists have been clear how
difficult it will be to meet the UK’s climate commitments without a major increase in investment.
Even with the £28 billion that had previously been pledged, the UK’s investment spending would

remain well below that of comparable countries and the National Infrastructure Commission has
stated that Britain’s infrastructure spending needs to rise by at least £30 billion per year. Not only is
scrapping a commitment to a green industrial strategy environmentally destructive but both
economically and socially too. The scrapping of the policy will leave Britain behind both the US and
the EU in the race for green technology, sending hundreds of thousands of good quality
manufacturing jobs overseas that could have gone to areas devastated by the deindustrialisation of
Thatcher. It further leaves Labour without a plan for about reducing sky high energy bills, dealing
with the UK’s flatlined economy that has now entered a recession and of course leaves Labour
without a plan to end the longest squeeze on wages since the Napoleonic Wars.

Labour will almost certainly form the next government but from Labour’s sacking of shadow
ministers who voted for a ceasefire in Gaza, to Keir Starmer’s backing of transphobic policies from
the Tory government, Labour is clearly failing to offer a hopeful vision for the future. Young people
who are disillusioned by a Labour Party of middle managers offering nothing but Tory policies
shouldn’t have to accept that nothing will ever change and that things will continue getting worse. If
young people want to vote for a party that supports green investment in our economy, taxing the
rich to fund our public services, bringing energy, water and mail into public ownership, scrapping
tuition fees, bringing in rent controls and reversing Tory welfare policies then they can use the
elections coming up this year to vote Green. In the local elections in May, the Green Party is
currently second in Headingley and Hyde Park – within touching distance of adding to the green
councillors already on Leeda City Council. The greens are further second overall in three of the four
wards that will make up the new Leeds Central and Headingley parliamentary constituency for the
next general election likely to be held later this year. It’s clear that if you want real change and a
country that works for the many not the few Labour won’t deliver what’s needed.